Madras High Court
R.Sekar vs State Of Tamilnadu on 19 October, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
CRLA.No.250 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 19.10.2024
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.250 of 2019
R.Sekar ... Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamilnadu
Represented by Inspector of Police
Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Wing
Villupuram
Crime No.2/2011 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to call for the
records relating to the proceedings in Spl. Case No.11 of 2013 on the file of the
Court of Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Villupuram and
set aside the order of conviction dated 26.04.2019 and set the appellant at
liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Devaraj
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/11
CRLA.No.250 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant was a Firka Surveyor of Nemili Firka, and he now challenges the
judgment of the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Villupuram, in Special Case No.11 of 2013 for his conviction and sentence for
offences U/s.7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The sentence imposed on him reads as below:
Accused Offence Sentence imposed
U/s.7 of P.C. Act, R.I. for 4 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
1988 default to undergo S.I. for 3 months.
Accused U/s.13(2) r/w R.I. for 5 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- in
13(1)(d) of P.C. default S.I. for 6 months.
Act, 1988
2. The case of the prosecution runs as below:
✔ In February 2011, the appellant was working as a Firka Surveyor of
Nemili Firka.
✔ Be that as it may, P.W.2 had applied vide Ext.P4 application to the
Tahsildhar concerned for transfer of patta.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
✔ In connection therewith, on 04.02.2011, P.W.2 is said to have met the
appellant and the appellant demanded Rs.4,500/- as bribe money. This
amount was later negotiated and was brought down to Rs.2,000/-. The
appellant is said to have required P.W.2 to meet him on 09.02.2011.
✔ Unwilling to oblige the appellant's demand for bribe, P.W.2 approached
the respondent with Ext.P2 - complaint, receiving which P.W.12,
registered Ext.P22 - F.I.R. It was 9.00 a.m. when F.I.R was registered.
✔ P.W.12 initiated the pre-trap procedures and in the course of which he
had entrusted 1 x Rs.1,000/- and 2 x Rs.500/-, all the three notes smeared
with phenolphthalein powder with P.W.2, under Ext.P3 - Entrustment
Mahazar.
✔ P.W.12 led his trap team which comprised besides him, P.W.2, P.W.3
and one Kathiravan. The trap team landed at the office of the appellant
at 12.30 in the noon. As planned, the planted currencies were tendered
to the appellant and he received it and kept it in his pocket. P.W.2 would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
now alert P.W.12, who would arrive at the scene of occurrence with the
other shadow witness Kathiravan. He proceeded to conduct necessary
tests as contemplated. The trap indeed was successful. He inter alia
seized the planted currencies under Ext.P12 - seizure mahazar and
completed the rest of the post trap procedures.
✔ The investigation was then taken over by P.W.13. He completed the
investigation and laid the final report.
3.1 On taking cognizance of the offence on the police report, the trial Court
framed charges against the appellant as indicated in the opening paragraph of
the judgment and proceeded to try the appellant on those charges. During trial,
the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13, marked Ext.P1 to Ext.P24 and
produced M.O.1 to M.O.4. The appellant did not choose to produce any oral or
documentary evidence.
3.2 On appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court convicted the
appellant and sentenced him as above. This appeal is directed against the said
judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:
a) P.W.1 who accorded sanction for prosecution U/s.19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 did not apply his mind. Indeed, Ext.P1, the
proceeding by which P.W.1 has granted sanction for prosecution does
not enumerate the list of documents which he had perused. The tone and
tenure of the proceedings only indicate that he has merely reproduced
what the investigating agency has presented to him and Ext.P1 nowhere
gives an impression that there had been an independent application of
mind by P.W.1.
b) There never was a demand made by the appellant on 04.02.2011.
Indeed, if there had been a demand on 04.02.2011, then P.W.2 would not
have taken another five days to complain about it on the very date of
trap. In fact, P.W.2 in his cross examination would depose that when he
tendered money pursuant to execution of the trap, the appellant did not
ask for the bribe money but only he had tendered it voluntarily. When
there is no demand, then one of the limbs of the triple criteria required to
establish an offence U/s.7 of the Act, fails. When there is no offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
U/s.7 of the Act, necessarily the appellant deserves to be acquitted.
c) Admittedly, P.W.2 had only applied for transfer of patta which is not part
of the duty of the appellant. In other words, when the appellant is not in
a position to officially do any favours to P.W.2, then whatever the
prosecution alleges falls outside the purview of Section 7 of the Act.
5.Per contra, Dr.C.E.Pratap, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
submitted that the charges U/s.7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act
were framed as two independent charges. Therefore, mere failure of charge
U/s.7 of the Act does not ipso facto rescue an accused person of charge framed
U/s.13(2) of the Act.
6.When money is tendered and received, a demand for the same has to be
presumed. Once bribe money is accepted, then presumption U/s.20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will step in. This would imply that in all
cases where money is paid and received, a presumption of demand has to be
made which in turn will invoke the application of the presumption U/s.20 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Act, and the accused person would be under an obligation to rebut the same
with convincing explanation. The present appellant's efforts is not adequate
enough to rebut the presumption U/s.20 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the
ratio laid in Neeraj Dutta V. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2022) 5 SCR 104)].
7.Rival submissions are carefully weighed. There is merit on the submissions
of both the sides. It is beyond doubt or debate that to constitute an offence
U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must produce
foundational facts which may enable it to invoke the presumption U/s.20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As rightly argued by the learned
Prosecutor, where money is paid and received, a demand for money must have
to be inferred, since no demand for illegal gratification will be made with
public notice by the offender.
8.Turning to the facts of the case, it is not so much whether on 04.02.2011 the
appellant had demanded any bribe. All it matters is whether on 09.02.2011 he
had accepted the bribe money given. Here the testimony of P.W.2 indicates
that, before he tendered Rs.2,000/- as bribe money, the appellant neither
enquired about the money nor demanded it. It would therefore be inferred that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.W.2 had volunteered to tender money and this indeed was accepted by the
appellant. Now, with no demand for money adequately established and nothing
to indicate that the intent of the bribe giver and the alleged bribe taker were on
the same frequency, it is nigh difficult to conclude that appellant had received
the money with an intent to receive the same as a bribe money. Necessarily,
this Court has to hold that no offence U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, is made out.
9.The game does not stop here. The appellant still has to explain as to why he
received the money when he is not under any legal obligation or duty to receive
it. This falls squarely U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The evidence on record does not provide any clue to this Court to find
that this explanation is adequate enough to rebut the presumption U/s.20 of the
Act, vis-a-vis the charge U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
10. To conclude, this Court partly allows the appeal and acquits the appellant
for charge U/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but confirms the
conviction of the trial Court for offence U/s.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
11.Turning to sentence part of it, this Court finds that the sentence of five (5)
years R.I. is on the higher side and reduces it to one (1) year S.I. and confirms
the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one (1) month S.I. The
term he had already spent in prison either during investigation or after the
judgment of the trial court until his sentence is suspended by this Court is
directed to be adjusted against the term of imprisonment this Court now
imposes U/s.428 Cr.P.C. The appellant is required to surrender before the trial
Court within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and on his failure, the trial Court is directed to secure the appellant.
No costs.
19.10.2024
kas
Index : yes / no
Neutral Citation
1.The Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act Cases,
Villupuram
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
